Food for Ken
neil.fournier at sympatico.ca
Sat Nov 15 15:27:29 EST 2003
Upon reading this rather long winded posting I was actually a little
appalled at the stupidity that was being discussed here. We are all here
(or at least read these postings) because we all have a passion or at an
interest with the complex processes mediated by the brain. Many of us
actually study these processes in the academic context, whereas, others
simply have a general interest. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the
major purpose of setting a post on these groups is to faciliate the
cross-talk between the different disciplines, in a manner, that encourages
useful and constructive conversations (not belittling and insulting)
regarding data. To sit there and to make comments that are made to insult a
persons intelligence or ideas is utterly useless and takes away from what
science really is. If anything the above discussion between Omegazero2003
and David Longley reflect that. To sit there and insult one another in the
manner by which you two did is completely appalling and unprofessional. It
is completely unscientific and actually ends up wasting the time of everyone
else with comments in your postings like, "Psychologist hardly qualifies",
or my personal favorite, "You are the master of self-centered-ness
Narcissus!" (complete with grammatical errors and all. If anything with
comments like this you end up portraying to the rest of us that you are
However, people are people and often take criticism of their "ideas" and
data as a criticism and insults against them. For example, try to publish
data that goes up against what a reviewer may believe. I have received
many, even rather nasty comments (that are completely emotional and not even
in empirical), by reviewer on papers that I have submitted that may question
what they believe to be the process . The point is this, criticism goes
hand and hand with presenting data OR ideas in the public forum. That is
the price you must pay. Unforunately you must encounter people either as
reviewers for your paper, granting agencies, or on newsgroups that get
extremely emotional when it comes to certain topics and especially if your
data goes against what they have found or believe takes place.
(These comments are basically for Ken). I think many of the previous
comments were extremely valid. Ken's ideas are Ken's ideas. He is probably
the only one that truly understands or at least see's the patterns that he
argues are there. I think its great that someone decides to present their
ideas in the public forum. Criticism and questioning will of course go hand
in hand. At least to me, I think that most people have a problem with the
manner by which Ken presents his ideas. They are really aren't clear. As a
result people either don't get them and think they may be even silly. That
isn't to say that they may be wrong but they really aren't explained in a
fashion that is both clear and informative (to the general population...
including myself). The jargon is complicated and does help the explanation
of the ideas. I would really strongly suggest writing a succint essay on
the topics with reference to the pertinent literature where appropriate and
perhaps putting them on a webpage. Many of the comments in the postings
make reference to things that are apparent (to you) but the necessary
logical steps that would be necessary (to us) for proof aren't all that
clear. Another issue I think people have (at least I have) is that you
never (or at least hardly) make reference to data from others that support
your ideas. You are not the first person to make the argument for the of
globally-based ideas (involving integration and differentiation) regarding
how decussation in complex processing takes place in systems at all levels
(Awyn Scott has argued for this, even, Stapp made reference to this in one
of his books. ER John is another example). Nonetheless, your ideas really
would hold more creditability with at least mention of previous work. I
personally feel that if you explained your ideas more thoroughly, not using
abbreviation that you coined, your results would be more enlightening. So I
conclude with this colleague, the criticisms and unforunate insults that
you have experienced are the price you must pay for doing research. Welcome
"KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mcOrb.230020$0v4.16861563 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:x+Tj+$HlgPr$Ewpi at longley.demon.co.uk...
> | [...]
> | I really don't think I've seen anything
> | from you which either I or others have
> | not said more clearly and usefully.
> | [...]
> Who else has provided a golbally-integrated
> explanation of not only why the phenomenon of
> decussation occurs as it does, but why it must
> occur as it does?
> You've done that?
> Give me a ref.
> Others have done that?
> Give me a ref.
> K. P. COllins
More information about the Neur-sci